[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Classpath and org.omg.*

From: Stuart Ballard
Subject: Re: Classpath and org.omg.*
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:26:22 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20031010 Debian/1.4-6

Stephen Crawley wrote:
IMO, it is a GOOD THING that the OMG defends the integrity of these
interfaces as best they can.  It so happens that they have decided that
a restrictive copyright notice is their most effective tool for doing this. They are probably right. [You may disagree, but then you need
to understand the nature of the organisation and its relationship with
the ORB vendors.]

While OMG staffers are generally supportive of Open Source (AFAIK), they
are >>not<< going to be persuaded to do things that openly undermine the
integrity of the CORBA standards.  It would be against the interest of
the OMG's 700+ member organisations, and the OMG Board would stomp on
them with big boots.

I think I see a fairly simple way that OMG could preserve the integrity of the CORBA standard while remaining Free Software. In much the same way as some Free licenses allow free modification but require that anyone making such modifications must change the name of the software, couldn't the OMG say something like:

"You may modify this software, but if you distribute a modified version you must change the package name to something that does not begin with 'org.omg'."

At least, such a change would meet *my* criteria as Free Software - in a Free environment, if you need to use and distribute a modified version, you can do a simple Find/Replace/Recompile on whatever software you're using to point to the new package name. Unfortunately some people might not consider this to be Free enough - you couldn't plug a modified version into a proprietary application that expected the org.omg package name, for example. I consider this to be a moot point because people who care about freedom aren't using such applications.

If we were to advocate this solution to the OMG, we should at least make sure we have consensus within the Free Software community that the solution we're proposing is acceptable. (I think the benchmark for "everyone agrees it's free enough" is if RMS and debian-legal are both okay with it ;) )

I'd hope it would be acceptable to the OMG because it doesn't allow any vendor to subvert the integrity of the standard: the subversion becomes pretty blatant when you find that the vendor's libraries aren't in the org.omg package.

If everyone agrees that this proposal is "free enough", perhaps it's something that the FSF could approach the OMG with - or individuals here such as yourself or Brian who have contacted them could try advocating.

BTW, I'm in full agreement with you that this is something that will become very important in the long run.


Stuart Ballard, Senior Web Developer
FASTNET - Web Solutions
(215) 283-2300, ext. 126

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]